This image (linked from imgur) is 1400 x 600. Tried it at 1024 pixels but the detail is lost.
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/5060u2r.jpg)
Had not noticed that until you mentioned it. I think it is partly Photoshop and partly a mysterious blotch which is hiding out somewhere, perhaps on the camera sensor, which I have not been able to find and cleanup as yet.Are the undulations real, or artifacts of PP?
To stitch there must be a large overlap between the images or the software simply refuses to work. I think in general that there is some image adjustment by software in both stacking and stitching - though not nearly enough to compromise the images as a whole. The benefits of stacking far outweigh such minor tweaks.So I ask, 75RR..where a long bodyform like your diatoms posted here...is it that at the 'stiches'...you loose some details..perhaps you omit a section ( yes a small section of the body)...perhaps you unwittingly repeat a small segment of the diatom?
Will doAt any rate, I am always particularly interested in the diatom images you post, please keep 'em coming!
Good question. Believe you could well be right. Found this (thanks to your tip) which would seem to indicate my two photos are different views of the same species.... could it be that the two photos are different views of the same diatom? Like, girdle view against valve view?
Is it necessary to stack micrographs in every instance 75? Is it necessary with bright-field imagery? I understand with astro pix it's necessary because of the low light levels and the movement inherent in the mounts that the scopes sit atop but I fail to see why it's necessary with our microscope pix.75RR wrote: ... As the image consists of several stacks stitched together (9 in total), what appear as undulations is partly an effect of the 'blotch'
Indeed not. There are valid reasons for doing it (see attached image + link from Wiki), but at the end of the day it is just a personal preference.Is it necessary to stack micrographs in every instance 75?
Hi 75! As per the 'blotch'.... Worry-ye-not my friend, that is no blotch. This effect happens almost every time with stitches of my own images through the 'scope. It's quite maddening at first, as there's no visible variation across the illumination of the field through the 'scope, but when the camera takes the image there's very often a trace of unevenness in the background's brightness, as though illumination is uneven, which it isn't. I've come to the conclusion (out of puzzlement and desperation rather than the use of any knowledgeable logic) that it's 'something' the camera's exposure/processing causes. I suppose I'd call it an artifact from the camera.75RR wrote:Many thanks vasselle, Crater Eddie, billbillt and KurtM
Had not noticed that until you mentioned it. I think it is partly Photoshop and partly a mysterious blotch which is hiding out somewhere, perhaps on the camera sensor, which I have not been able to find and cleanup as yet.Are the undulations real, or artifacts of PP?
As the image consists of several stacks stitched together (9 in total), what appear as undulations is partly an effect of the 'blotch' making a sequential appearance. Should have tidied up the background more.
Can therefore confirm (if my memory is to be trusted) that the Diatom is indeed flat
Ahhhh, I see one value of it now. No doubt there are many more too75RR wrote: Indeed not. There are valid reasons for doing it (see attached image + link from Wiki), but at the end of the day it is just a personal preference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking
Shouldn't really. It helps if one visualizes the areas that will be combined in the final image.ImperatorRex wrote:
Side effect of the stacking may be that it looks a bit "flat"?